Thursday, March 12, 2009

First Mother Help Needed in SD: No Confidentiality Was Promised

The good news from South Dakota--that they passed an open-records bill with a contact preference--NOT VETO--is tempered somewhat. Apparently there is still some kind of hold up because some in the legislature believe that mothers were "promised" confidentiality.

Hold on there, ladies and gentlemen! I was not "promised" confidentiality, it was forced on me if I wanted to use the state system of adoption. Anonymity from my child was the biggest problem I had with agreeing with the adoption (other than the sense I was doing something against nature, and I was), and I argued with my social worker for weeks over this provision of the law.

Surrender papers carry no such "promise." In fact, the great majority of women long to be united with their children, if only to learn what happened to them and that they prospered.

Letters and emails are needed to reach the SD legislators who are apparently rethinking this bill, and want to add a contact veto. If you are a first mother, please please take the time to email them.

Just copy the information below into your email and let them know the promise of confidentiality is a crock! And that it has been used to keep records sealed in the face of all evidence to the contrary. A mother does not need or want "privacy" from her offspring. And should she be so heartless as to desire it, the adopted person's wishes in the name of human decency must trumps her. Her right to privacy should not trample another person's right to be able to answer the most basic question of all: Who Am I?

Of course it would be better if we had a hundred South Dakota mothers emailing, but let's let them know, wherever you are from, that a right to "privacy" does not included anonymity from your offspring. And if you are in contact with other first mothers, please urge them to write. The time is now.

Here are the names and addresses:Rep.Nygaard@state.sd.us,Rep.Cutler@state.sd.us,Rep.Dreyer@state.sd.us,Sen.Jerstad@state.sd.us,Sen.Dempster@state.sd.us,Sen.Adelstein@state.sd.us___________Eugenics and the theater, coming up on Saturday.

3 comments
:

I wasn't 'promised' confidentuality (not that I wanted it) but I was told I 'would never be allowed to search' and my son 'would be too happy with his adoptive family to want to search' for me. If I could meet the witch who told me that I would be laughing in her face as my son did search for me, the law did change on searching and I found my son without actively searching. If she is dead then I would quite happily dance on her grave. Adoption affected both our lives and I am just thankful we are in each others lives now.

A beautiful song from a Korean adoptee

From the New York Times

"Lorraine Dusky, a writer who relinquished a daughter as a young single mother in New York State in 1966, supports opening the records. She reported in her 2015 memoir that in the handful of states that offered women the opportunity to remove their names from original birth certificates, only a small fraction of women — fewer than 1 percent — chose to do so." --Don’t Keep Adopted People in the Dark by Gabrielle Glaser, June 19, 2018

Who Are We?

From the New York Times

"On FirstMotherForum.com, a blog that discusses issues among women who had given children up for adoption, Lorraine Dusky, one of the site’s authors, praised the series (ABC's 10-episode Find My Family): 'Maybe this will be heard by people who think it is unloyal somehow for a person to search out his or her roots, parents, family, when it is a most natural desire of consciousness.'--Two Reality Shows Stir Publicity and Anger"--Dec. 6, 2009.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

This blog takes cookies.

"It shouldn't take a miracle to find people you are related to by blood."--Jenn Gentlesk